Date:  Thu, 1 Jan 1998 19:00:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801020000.TAA13924@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 607
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan  1 19:00:44 1998
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

la stivn cusku di'e
> It seems to me that one must either fuzzify <djuno> with
><jei>, specify the epistemology or method by which certain knowledge is
>claimed, or use a bridi which reports "Just the facts, M'am," such as:
>
><la markl co'i viska nu le renro mo'u renro le bolci ku le kabvu kei>

How can you be so sure that those are the facts? Can anybody other than
markl say what markl saw? Can even markl? You seem to take extreme
caution with djuno, but not with viska, why?  How is that sentence any
more factual than:

  la markl djuno le du'u le renro cu renro le bolci le kabvu

co'o mi'e xorxes